No. Suspects are often arrested on a subset of the criminal charges with which they will ultimately be indicted. Even in more serious crimes like mass shootings, prosecutors will press charges on only a few of the homicide counts at first. This is common practice for prosecutors.

Well, when they indict on the remaining 18 then we can update our models. Until then, the SEC is only alleging that 7 were securities.

That's a horrible prior.

This isn't about the SEC at all. Arresting on a subset of eventual charges is something that nearly all prosecutors do, and for a large set of very good strategic reasons.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of high-profile cases where the original arrest was based on all possible charges.

Yeah, I'm not arguing they don't do that. This is one of those cases where arguing the negative without clearly stating your argument makes things easy but not particularly useful.

What argument are you presenting instead? Because he was charged for 7 instances of security fraud we should assume that all 25 are securities fraud? Regardless of whether the SEC eventually charges all 25, they've clearly decided to differentiate them all on some metric (otherwise, they would've charged them all at the same time).

True, but your model should already reflect the fact that this is a not an uncommon pattern.

Is there a list of all 25 somewhere? This could provide some illumination on what SEC does and does not consider a security.

Or maybe the SEC considers all of them securities but thought that they had the strongest case for these seven and didn't want the distraction of arguing about the other 18. But yeah, would be interesting to see the list.

If SEC considers any of them securities, it's very strange for them to go after a single guy at Coinbase and not the entire company, since they've just declared them an illegal securities exchange.

(As opposed to an illegal commodities exchange for bitcoin.)

Yeah and Coinbase just fired back: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-does-not-list-securities-...

This will be the central issue of the case. It'll be interesting! Will Coinbase step in to defend this guy who they were going to fire, just to prove that they don't list securities?

I think maybe it's only strange if you assume the SEC has unlimited money and time. Grandparent comment says it better, but they're likely focusing on cases they think are pretty clear-cut.

I'm interested in cases like Rari where there was a decentralized governance mechanism but it was dominated by a "core team", that feels like it encompasses a larger slice of the space than I would have expected. Many of the others are deeply unsurprising though, they are US corporations, took VC investments, have active managerial teams which are all employees of that corp, and advertise themselves as working to increase token value.